Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

A Question for Maggie Gallagher

Jim Burroway

July 30th, 2010

Four days have passed since the infamous “kill the gays” sign appeared at NOM’s Indianapolis rally. And four days of silence on the sign from NOM. Instead, they’ve been complaining that NOM are the victims — that’s right, victims! – of the mean old gays.

The sign quotes Leviticus. Rob Tisinai points out that NOM President Maggie Gallagher has defended others who has cited the Levitical death penalty for gay men. So now is the time for a direct question to Maggie Gallagher. Leviticus 20:13 says:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Maggie, do you or do you not agree with this statement?

[Graphic by Rob Tisinai]

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Mike
July 30th, 2010 | LINK

I’m glad your asking the question too.

I’ve been tweeting at both NOM and Louis Marinelli with a link to the image and a request for a comment for four days. I’ve also tried to link to the image on NOM’s blog, but each comment with a link to the picture has been censored and not posted.

Timothy Kincaid
July 30th, 2010 | LINK

Jim,

Brian Brown addressed this in his Send Money letter:

The group “Freedom to Marry” issued their own statement yesterday, but they apparently forgot to coordinate their message of the day with HRC. Instead of accusing us of “made up stories of harassment” this group showed a repulsive picture of someone whose sign featured a noose, implying that homosexuals should be put to death. They went on to “demand” that NOM repudiate this “incitement to violence.” We’d treat this call seriously if it weren’t such a contrived stunt.

First of all, NOM has already repudiated this display of intolerance — and did so on the spot (not through a press release). We demanded this individual to take down his sign, because it was inconsistent with NOM’s aims, methods, and message: We come together in love to support marriage as one man and one woman.

Second, at every rally we make it clear that our fight is not with gay Americans, it is with a bad idea. The Lord teaches us that we are to love all His children. We approach the issue of marriage from the perspective of love. You can watch video of NOM’s Chair, Maggie Gallagher, making this point here.

Jim Burroway
July 30th, 2010 | LINK

That’s a self-serving fundraising letter to its base, not a statement to the general public. There’s no evidence that they “demanded” he take down this sign, although I’m sure they were embarrassed by it. All we have is a gentle suggestion in the video that he not talk to the people from NomTracker.

Actually, I just want to know if Maggie Gallagher agrees with Leviticus.

Richard Rush
July 30th, 2010 | LINK

Maggie Gallagher Srivastav,

I don’t mean to dilute Jim Burroway’s important question, but I thought I would take this opportunity to ask you a few more questions.

You are obviously the most famous celebrity in the anti-marriage movement, so I assume you must have superlative credentials on all aspects of marriage. So, why were you not called to testify in the Prop-8 trial? Is it possible that you refused to testify because you knew your testimony could not withstand cross-examination? Did you worry that your main credential, a BA degree in Religious Studies from Yale, would expose you as being anti-facts. Isn’t it true that an embarrassing performance in the trial might have damaged your ability to continue persuading gullible people to adopt your anti-marriage views?

Since the name of your group is the National Organization for Marriage, do you have any proposals for actually creating better marriages? Why does it seem that NOM’s only proposal is to prevent marriages among people they don’t like? Wouldn’t it be more honest to change the name of NOM to Sanctimonious Crusaders Against Marriage (SCAM)?

I must give you some credit for pulling off one amazing feat, but I realize you’ve had years of practice: How do you manage to celebrate the sanctity of traditional marriage at all those tour venues without anyone questioning you about your invisible Hindu husband, Raman Srivastav, and the fact that you don’t use his surname? Since he’s been invisible for so long, don’t you think it’s about time for Raman’s picture to be put on a traditional milk carton?

Ben in Oakland
July 30th, 2010 | LINK

love it richard. Tres witty. and true.

Richard Rush
August 1st, 2010 | LINK

Thanks, Ben.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.